I'm sorry that you feel that you must hurl a compliment as an insult here.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 9:10 amExcuse me, Charles, but I consider a total idiocy these your words in this thread. It is here where you betray yourself as a sincere - the more sincere, in my view - historicist of the forum (and I use the term as an insult, at least here).Charles Wilson wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 8:54 am Before you multiply entities, at least look on the ground for other possibilities.
False. JtB is a representative of the Mishmarot Priesthood and is of Bilgah. Here is where the "Historicist" epithet is a Badge of Honor. If there is "History" here then I believe we should try to tease out the "Actual, Real History" and see where that goes. I neither love nor hate John.You love John the Baptist, you see him as the magical "hero" eclipsed deliberately by presumed evil conspirers, etc, etc.
No. Metaphysical reasoning is always on a knife edge and it is easy to take what appears to be solid reasoning and go very astray:That is all bullshit. I cannot avoid the impression that you are “dirtying” this thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0he-LZNzVg0
"Fortunately, I was able to interpret the signs correctly..."
Well,,,No General Ripper, you didn't. (BTW, one of the Great Scene in the History of Movie making)
The deal here, Giuseppe, is that I wish you well in your search for the Line of Reasoning that led to the Giant Mess of Early Christian Reasoning.
It's there but less available to the a priori reasoning that you apply, IMHO. Secret Alias and I do not always play well together in the sand box but I respect his work and reasoning even if it is fucked-up-beyond-all-repair, the stupid fuck . Hugs and kisses, SA
Keep working, Giuseppe. You're OK.
CW